/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/100211.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, February 11, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 29 Headlines CABLE ONE: Accused in Alabama of Installing Spyware Devices CALEDONIA: Ontario Court Says Class-Action Suit May Proceed CANADA LINE: Cambie Merchants' Class-Action Lawsuit Certified CVS CAREMARK: Accused of Selling Expired Products in La. Suit IOWA TELECOM: Settles Class Action Windstream Merger Litigation LOS ANGELES: 9th Circuit Rejects Over-Detention Suit OKLAHOMA: Court of Appeals Affirms Class in Foster Care Lawsuit PROCTER & GAMBLE: Accused of Misbranding & False Advertising SEARS ROEBUCK: 234 Employees Share in $6.2 Mil. ADA Settlement TIPPECANOE COUNTY: 7th Circuit Reinstates Grievance Policy Suit TOYOTA MOTOR: Prius Owner Sues in Los Angeles County TOYOTA MOTOR: Horwitz Files Hybrid Defect Suit in C.D. Calif. TOYOTA MOTOR: Coughlin Files Shareholder Suit in C.D. Calif. ********* CABLE ONE: Accused in Alabama of Installing Spyware Devices ----------------------------------------------------------- Tracey Dalzell Walsh at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action accuses Internet provider Cable One of "interception and eavesdropping" by installing devices in its broadband network so that NebuAd, an Internet ad company, could place targeted ads in Web sites visited by Cable One customers. Samuel Green claims Cable One installed the devices for several months and was paid a "price per customer, per month" by NebuAd. The online ad company used the information to "monitor and profile" users and then place the ads on Web sites, according to the federal complaint. Cable One did not inform customers of the "infiltration" and did not give them an opportunity to opt-out, the complaint states. NebuAd is not named as a defendant. Mr. Green says both Cable One and NebuAd have testified to a congressional committee investigating whether NebuAd violated wiretapping laws. He claims Cable One lied when it testified that NebuAd used no personal information belonging to users. Mr. Green adds that Cable One's actions intruded on his "seclusion and solitude." The class seeks damages of $100 for each day of the intrusion and wants Cable One to delete all the data it wrongfully collected. Green claims that the class has had to spend time, money and resources investigating and trying to remove the "third-party tracking cookies" installed in their computers. A copy of the Complaint in Green v. Cable One, Inc., Case No. 10-cv-00259 (N.D. Ala.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/02/08/Cable1Spyware.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Joey K. James, Esq. BUNCH & JAMES 210 E. Tennessee St. Florence, AL 35630 Telephone: 256-764-0095 - and - Scott A. Kamber, Esq. David A. Stampley, Esq. KAMBERLAW, LLC 11 Broadway, Suite 2200 New York, NY 10004 Telephone: 212-920-3071 - and - Brian J. Panish, Esq. Rahul Ravipudi, Esq. PANISH, SHEA & BOYLE, LLP 11111 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 700 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone 310-477-1700 - and - Joseph H. Malley, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH H. MALLEY, P.C. 1045 North Zang Blvd. Dallas, TX 75208 Telephone: 214-943-6100 CALEDONIA: Ontario Court Says Class-Action Suit May Proceed ----------------------------------------------------------- Canwest News Service reports that an Ontario Superior Court judge said Monday a class-action lawsuit against the provincial police over the 2006 Caledonia, Ont. native dispute can go forward. More than 400 businesses and contractors and as many residents have been identified as potentially joining the lawsuit to complain how authorities handled the protest. Attorney John Findlay, said claims could reach tens of millions of dollars. The shutting down of a major street and highway during the crisis for more than five weeks "had tremendous effect on the businesses," Findlay said. "The continual occupation had nuisance affects on the residents who live around the site and the failure to clear the occupiers from the site also affected the contractors supplier services." Native protesters claiming ownership over land being developed into a subdivision, known as the Douglas Creek Estates, occupied the site in February, 2006. The following April, OPP officers raided the site and ejected the protesters only to be driven back when several hundred natives from the nearby Six Nations reserve arrived. The natives then erected barricades which cut off a number of homes from the rest of the community. "It is readily apparent that at the core issue of this lawsuit is whether there was failure of the OPP to provide statutorily and contractually required policing services to the residents of Caledonia in each of the identified circumstances," wrote Justice David S. Crane Monday in a decision which names a former OPP commissioner, an OPP inspector and the province. "Did the defendants allow a state of lawlessness to exist? Did the defendants respond reasonably to circumstances that required a balances approach?" "It is my view that the goal of access to justice could not be served by individual actions in the circumstances of this case." The crisis in Caledonia, about 110 kilometres southwest of Toronto, led to a flurry of court cases and lawsuits. Last week charges were dropped against OPP Commissioner Julian Fantino in relation to a complaint by a private citizen over his handling of aboriginal protests in Caledonia. In December the Ontario government and provincial police reached an out-of-court settlement with a couple who claimed their family was terrorized during the aboriginal occupation. Lawyers will next meet, at a yet-to-be-determined date, to work out a litigation plan and common issues with Crown attorneys. CANADA LINE: Cambie Merchants' Class-Action Lawsuit Certified ------------------------------------------------------------- Keith Fraser at The Province reports that several hundred Vancouver merchants along Cambie Street, suing for damages arising from the Canada Line construction, have had their case certified as a class-action lawsuit. The owners claim that the decision to use a cut-and-cover construction method instead of a bored tunnel resulted in parking and traffic problems that negatively affected their businesses. Lawyers for the defendants, which include Canada Line Rapid Transit Inc., argued that the suit didn't raise common issues and that in any case, a class proceeding was not the best means to proceed. But in a ruling released Monday, B.C. Supreme Court Justice Ian Pitfield found in favor of the owners. "The complaints among the proposed class members are similar. The common allegation is that construction substantially interfered with access to the properties or businesses owned or operated by members of the class. . . . The common nature of the class complaint favors certification." The judge said there were several common issues to address. They include whether the cut-and-cover method substantially interfered with the businesses, and whether there was statutory authority for that interference. The class is comprised of 62 individuals or companies who own properties in Cambie Village and another 215 individuals or companies who operate a business from leased premises in the same area. "We are very happy with the decision," said Leonard Schein, who is on the board of directors of the Cambie Village Business Association. "It is the correct decision, which will save court time and legal fees for everyone. If TransLink would only settle with us rather than keep wasting taxpayers' money with lawyers and court, it would be in everyone's interest." Mr. Justice Pitfield was the same judge who awarded clothing- store owner Susan Heyes $600,000 for the nuisance created to her shop by the rapid-transit-line construction. The Heyes ruling is under appeal. A third lawsuit involves 41 other merchants on Cambie Street. In his ruling on the class-action suit, Mr. Justice Pitfield noted that the multi-party proceeding is "less practical or less efficient" that a class proceeding for the merchants on Cambie. The 19-kilometre Canada Line runs from downtown Vancouver to the Vancouver International Airport in Richmond. It opened for business last August. CVS CAREMARK: Accused of Selling Expired Products in La. Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that CVS Caremark sells expired medications, baby formula and food, a class action claims in New Orleans Federal Court. A copy of the Complaint in Cooper v. CVS Carmark Corporation, Case No. 10-cv-00331 (E.D. La.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/02/08/CCA.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary J. Gambel, Esq. MURPHY, ROGERS, SLOSS & GAMBEL One Shell Square 701 Poydras St., Suite 400 New Orleans, LA 70139 Telephone: 504-523-0400 - and - Jennifer N. Willis, Esq. WILLIS & BUCKLEY 3723 Canal St. New Orleans, LA 70119 Telephone: 504-488-6300 IOWA TELECOM: Settles Class Action Windstream Merger Litigation --------------------------------------------------------------- Iowa Telecommunications Services, Inc. (NYSE Symbol: IWA) announced that Iowa Telecom and Windstream Corporation have entered into a tentative settlement of the pending shareholder litigation concerning the Company's acquisition by Windstream pursuant to the merger agreement signed on November 23, 2009. Following the announcement of the merger on November 24, 2009, several purported shareholders of the Company filed putative class action lawsuits challenging the merger and certain terms of the merger agreement. The directors of Iowa Telecom firmly believe that they acted in good faith and in the best interests of Iowa Telecom and its shareholders in approving the merger and the merger agreement. Iowa Telecom and its directors believe that the merger consideration is fair and that the merger is in the best interests of Iowa Telecom and its shareholders. Iowa Telecom, its directors and Windstream deny that any of them violated any law or breached any duty to shareholders of Iowa Telecom or anyone else and have vigorously defended the lawsuits. However, Iowa Telecom and its directors have determined that, in order to eliminate the uncertainty, distraction, burden and expense of future litigation and to permit the merger to proceed without possible delays from litigation, it is in the best interests of Iowa Telecom and its shareholders to enter into a settlement of the pending lawsuits. Iowa Telecom, its directors and Windstream have entered into a memorandum of understanding with counsel for the plaintiffs in the various shareholder lawsuits that provides for a settlement of all of these lawsuits. Pursuant to the proposed settlement, Iowa Telecom and Windstream have agreed to make certain revisions to the disclosure in the proxy statement to be mailed to Iowa Telecom's shareholders in connection with the approval of the merger, which revisions were proposed by counsel for the plaintiffs. No changes in the merger agreement or the terms of the merger will be made, and no payments will be made to shareholders in addition to those provided for in the merger agreement. In exchange for these revised disclosures, following completion of confirmatory discovery and final court approval of the settlement, the plaintiffs will dismiss their lawsuits with prejudice and release Iowa Telecom, its directors, Windstream and other related persons from any and all claims relating to the merger or the proxy statement for the merger. Iowa Telecom, its directors and Windstream have all agreed that they will not oppose certain requests for attorney fees by counsel for the plaintiffs. The settlement is subject to certain conditions, including, in addition to certain confirmatory due diligence by plaintiffs' counsel and court approval, certification of a class for settlement purposes and consummation of the merger. Iowa Telecom does not expect that the pendency of the litigation or the settlement process will cause a delay in the closing of the merger. As previously announced, Iowa Telecom and Windstream expect the closing to occur mid-2010. Additional Information and Where to Find It In connection with the proposed transaction, Windstream has filed a registration statement on Form S-4 with the SEC, which includes the Company's preliminary proxy statement and also constitutes a prospectus with respect to the Windstream securities. At the appropriate time, the Company will mail the proxy statement/prospectus to its shareholders. INVESTORS ARE URGED TO READ THE REGISTRATION STATEMENT AND PROXY STATEMENT/PROSPECTUS (INCLUDING ALL AMENDMENTS AND SUPPLEMENTS) BECAUSE THEY CONTAIN IMPORTANT INFORMATION. Investors may obtain free copies of the registration statement and proxy statement/prospectus, as well as other filings containing information about Windstream and the Company, without charge, at the SEC's Internet web site (www.sec.gov). These documents may also be obtained for free from the Company's Investor Relations web site (www.iowatelecom.com) or by directing a request to the Company at 403 W. Fourth Street North, Newton, Iowa 50208 or by calling (641) 787-2000. Copies of Windstream's filings may be obtained for free from Windstream's Investor Relations Web Site (www.windstream.com) or by directing a request to Windstream at Windstream Investor Relations, 4001 Rodney Parham Road, Little Rock, Arkansas 72212 or by calling (866) 320-7922. The Company, Windstream and their respective officers and directors may be deemed, under SEC rules, to be participants in the solicitation of proxies from the Company's shareholders with respect to the proposed Merger. Information regarding the officers and directors of the Company is included in its definitive proxy statement for its 2009 annual meeting filed with the SEC on April 29, 2009. Information regarding the officers and directors of Windstream is included in its Form 10-K for 2008 filed on February 19, 2009, and in its definitive proxy statement for its 2009 annual meeting filed with the SEC on March 23, 2009. More detailed information regarding the identity of potential participants in the solicitation, and their direct or indirect interests, by securities, holdings or otherwise, which interests may be different from those of the Company's shareholders generally, are set forth in the proxy statement and other materials to be filed with SEC in connection with the proposed transaction. About Iowa Telecom Iowa Telecommunications Services, Inc. (d/b/a Iowa Telecom) -- http://www.iowatelecom.com/-- is a telecommunications service provider that offers local telephone, long distance, Internet, broadband and network access services to business and residential customers. Today, the company serves over 450 Iowa communities and 16 Minnesota communities and employs nearly 800 people. The company's headquarters are in Newton, Iowa. The Company trades on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol IWA. LOS ANGELES: 9th Circuit Rejects Over-Detention Suit ---------------------------------------------------- Elizabeth Banicki at Courthouse News Service reports that the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit tossed a class action accusing the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department of taking its "sweet time" to process release orders, detaining people up to 29 hours after courts authorized their release. Former detainees said their prolonged detentions were the result of "deliberate indifference" to their constitutional rights by the department and Sheriff Leroy Baca. U.S. District Judge Dean Pregerson ruled for the defendants, saying Sheriff Baca can't reasonably be expected to have hundreds, even thousands, of detainees discharged immediately after the court orders their release, given the amount of paperwork that needs to be completed between the order and the actual release. Judge Pregerson also pointed the sheriff has made substantial progress over recent years in decreasing the number of people detained after their release orders. On appeal, the detainees insisted that the department has taken its "sweet time" in releasing them, and that this lackadaisical manner amounts to a policy of deliberate indifference. The three-judge panel in Pasadena upheld Judge Pregerson's finding that Sheriff Baca can't be held responsible for the time it takes to process a detainee's release. The circuit court also agreed that Sheriff Baca has taken adequate steps toward resolving the problem. A copy of the decision in Mortimer, et al. v. Baca, No. 07-55393 (9th Cir.), is available at: http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?514c The Plaintiffs-Appellants are represented by: Marion R. Yagman, Esq. Joseph Reichmann, Esq. YAGMAN & YAGMAN & REICHMAN 723 Ocean Front Walk Venice, CA 90291 Telephone: 310-452-3200 Leroy D. Baca, the Defendant-Appellee, is represented by: David D. Lawrence, Esq. Michael D. Allen, Esq. Justin W. Clark, Esq. FRANSCELL, STRICKLAND, ROBERTS & LAWRENCE, O.C. 100 West Broadway, Suite 1200 Glendale, CA 91210 Telephone: 818-545-1925 OKLAHOMA: Court of Appeals Affirms Class in Foster Care Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- Kevin King at The Associated Press reports that a federal appeals court has affirmed a lower-court ruling that granted class-action status to a lawsuit against the Oklahoma Department of Human Services. A three-judge panel ruled Monday that U.S. District Judge Gregory Frizzell didn't abuse his discretion when he certified the lawsuit as a class-action case in June. The 2008 lawsuit by Children's Rights, a child advocacy organization, accused the state of not finding "safe and adequate" homes for foster children and of inadequately monitoring their safety "due to an overburdened and mismanaged work force." Agency officials have said the strategy of the case filed on behalf of nine of the state's 10,000 foster children is to force them into an expensive settlement. Attorneys for the agency and for Children's Rights didn't immediately return calls seeking comment. A copy of the opinion in DG, et al. v. Devaughn, et al., No. 09-5093 (10th Cir.), is available at http://is.gd/7ZFWH The State is represented by: Donald M. Bingham, Esq. Donna Marie De Simone, Esq. Robert P. Skeith, Esq. Holly Hillerman, Esq. RIGGS, ABNEY, NEAL, TURPEN, ORBISON & LEWIS 502 West Sixth Street Tulsa, OK 74119-1010 Telephone: (918) 587-3161 - and - Robert A. Nance, Esq. Melvin C. Hall, Esq. Stephen L. Cortes, Esq. Thomas Askew, Esq. RIGGS, ABNEY, NEAL, TURPEN, ORBISON & LEWIS, PC 5801 N. Broadway , Suite 101 Oklahoma City, OK 73118-7489 - and - Joseph W. Strealy, Esq. Richard W. Freeman, Jr., Esq. Richard A. Resetaritz, Esq. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES P.O. Box 53025 Oklahoma City, OK 73152-3025 - and - Catherine Ann O'Leary, Esq. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES Tulsa District Child Support Enforcement P.O. Box 3643 Tulsa, OK 74101 - and - Scott D. Boughton, Esq. Tricia L. Everest, Esq. Assistant Attorney General OKLAHOMA ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE Litigation Division 313 N.E. 21st Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105 The Plaintiffs are represented by: Frederic Dorwart, Esq. Paul DeMuro, Esq. FREDERIC DORWART, LAWYERS 124 East Fourth Street Tulsa, Oklahoma 74103-5010 Telephone: 918-583-9922 Facsimile: 918-583-8251 - and - R. Thomas Seymour, Esq. Scott A Graham, Esq. SEYMOUR & GRAHAM, LLP 100 W. Fifth Street, Suite 550 Tulsa, Oklahoma 74103-4288 Telephone: 918-583-5791 Facsimile: 918-583-9251 - and - Bruce Day, Esq. Joe E. Edwards, Esq. DAY EDWARDS, PROPESTER & CHRISTENSEN, PC Suite 2900, Oklahoma Tower 210 Park Avenue Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Telephone: (405) 239-2121 Facsimile: (405) 236-1012 - and - Marcia Robinson Lowry, Esq. Ira P. Lustbader, Esq. William Kapell, Esq. Yasmin Grewal-Kok, Esq. Jeremiah Frei-Pearson, Esq. CHILDREN'S RIGHTS 330 Seventh Avenue, Fourth Floor New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (212) 683-2210 Facsimile: (212) 683-4015 - and - Phillip A. Geraci, Esq. Mark A. Beckman, Esq. R. Nadine Fontaine, Esq. Carly Henek, Esq. Andrew Bauer, Esq. KAYE SCHOLER LLP 425 Park Avenue New York, NY 10022-3598 Telephone: (212) 836-8000 PROCTER & GAMBLE: Accused of Misbranding & False Advertising ------------------------------------------------------------ Courthouse News Service reports that to capitalize on swine flu "hysteria," Procter & Gamble added vitamin C to its NyQuil and Day Quil drugs without a new drug application, and hawked them with false and misleading ads, a class action claims in Cincinnati Federal Court. A copy of the Complaint in Buffa v. The Procter & Gamble Company, Case No. 10-cv-00066 (S.D. Ohio) (Spiegel, J.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/02/08/SwineFlu.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Christian A. Jenkins, Esq. MINNILLO & JENKINS, CO. LPA 2712 Observatory Ave. Cincinnati, OH 45208 Telephone: 513-723-1600 - and - Scott A. Bursor, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF SCOTT A. BURSOR 369 Lexington Ave., 10th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: 212-989-9113 SEARS ROEBUCK: 234 Employees Share in $6.2 Mil. ADA Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- Lynne Marek at The National Law Journal reports that a federal judge in Chicago late last week gave final approval to the allocation of $6.2 million among 235 former Sears, Roebuck & Co. employees in the largest settlement ever reached by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in an Americans with Disabilities Act class action. The former workers, who said the company fired them after they went on disability leave, will receive between $2,500 and $122,500 each, depending on their individual circumstances, according to the allocation approved by U.S. District Judge Wayne Andersen of the Northern District of Illinois on Feb. 4. The workers will receive the money in the next two months. Overall settlement of the case with a consent decree was reached and announced last September. The EEOC sued Hoffman Estates, Ill.-based Sears in 2004 following a complaint from John Bava, an injured appliance service technician who said Sears fired him after he took a leave for knee, wrist and back injuries suffered on the job. Mr. Bava is the only plaintiff to get the top $122,500 payout, based on his initiation and the facts of his particular case, said John Hendrickson, who leads the Chicago regional EEOC office that pursued the matter. The agency found in pretrial discovery that many other employees at the retailer had encountered treatment similar to that experienced by Mr. Bava. Gregory Gochanour, Esq., was the supervisory EEOC trial attorney in Chicago on the case, and he had assistance from Deborah Hamilton, Esq., and Aaron DeCamp, Esq. One of Sears' lawyers: Amy L. Bess, Esq. SONNENSCHEIN, NATH & ROSENTHAL LLP Suite 600, East Tower 1301 K Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20005-3364 Telephone: 202-408-6400 referred Ms. Marek's request for comment to the Sears legal department, which had no comment on the allocation. TIPPECANOE COUNTY: 7th Circuit Reinstates Grievance Policy Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reinstated a class action brought by inmates of Tippecanoe County Jail, who say jail staff ignored their grievances, opened their legal mail in their absence and barred them from using the law library. Lead plaintiff Jeffery Mark Olson sued county sheriff Tracy Brown, alleging numerous violations of the First Amendment and Indiana law. The district court dismissed the case as moot, since Mr. Olson had been transferred out of the county jail 13 days after filing for class certification. On appeal, Mr. Olson argued that the case should proceed, because it was inherently transitory for any possible named plaintiff. The Chicago-based appellate panel agreed with Mr. Olson and revived the class action. "We find that this case fits within the exception to the mootness doctrine carved out for inherently transitory cases," Judge Joel Flaum wrote. "The duration of [Olson's] claim was at the discretion of the Indiana Department of Correction," Judge Flaum added. The uncertainty of his release or transfer "is precisely what makes the 'inherently transfer' exception applicable in this case." The judges reversed and remanded. A copy of the decision in Olson v. Brown, No. 09-2728 (7th Cir.), is available at: http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/tmp/V118FGRT.pdf The Plaintiff-Appellant is represented by: Gavin M. Rose, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF INDIANA 1031 E. Washington St. Indianapolis, IN 46202 Telephone: 317-635-4059 Tracy Brown, the Defendant-Appellee, is represented by: Douglas J. Masson, Esq. HOFFMAN, LUHMAN & MASSON Lafayette, Ind. P.O. Box 99 200 Ferry Street, Suite C Lafayette, IN 47902 Telephone: 765-423-5404 TOYOTA MOTOR: Prius Owner Sues in Los Angeles County ---------------------------------------------------- Steve Gorman at Reuters reports from Los Angeles that Toyota Motor Corp. faces its first U.S. class-action lawsuit stemming from complaints of faulty braking of its top-selling Prius hybrid model, which the automaker is to recall. The suit -- Miller vs. Toyota Motor Sales, USA et al, No. BC431344 (Calif. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty.) -- was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court on Friday, and seeks unspecified monetary damages and a court order requiring Toyota to repair a braking defect that the named plaintiff, Elaine Miller, says makes driving her 2010 Prius dangerous. Ms. Miller's lawyer: Daniel L. Warshaw, Esq. PEARSON, SIMON, WARSHAW & PENNY, LLP 15165 Ventura Boulevard Suite 400 Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 Telephone: (818) 788-8300 said on Monday he is seeking class-action status in California for all affected owners of the 2010-year Prius and the 2010 Lexus HS250h hybrid, which he said is equipped with the same braking system. "The crux of the (suit) is to get these vehicles fixed and safe," he told Reuters. A Toyota spokesman declined comment on the product liability suit, which accuses the company of negligence and breach of warranty. The lawsuit says the cars "suffer from a material defect" in their "regenerative braking system" -- designed to recycle kinetic energy from the friction of slowing the car -- that causes the brake system "to routinely and systematically disengage." It has been just over two weeks since the world's largest automaker began a recall of 8 million vehicles because of a sticky gas pedal, but already, at least 30 class-action lawsuits have been filed against the cash-rich company. Mr. Warshaw said he brought the suit, believed to be the first seeking class-action status against Toyota over Prius braking complaints, in California because the state has some of the nation's toughest consumer protection laws and because Toyota's U.S. operations are based there. SOFTWARE GLITCH CITED Mr. Warshaw said the problem, apparently rooted in a computer software glitch, is most pronounced when trying to slow down or stop the vehicle on uneven or slippery road surfaces. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, an agency of the U.S. Transportation Department, lists 124 such braking complaints from consumers since February 3, including four reports of accidents, two of them said to have resulted in injury. NHTSA said it opened a formal investigation February 4 into complaints of "momentary loss of braking capability while traveling over an uneven road surface, pothole or bump." The suit suggests that tens of thousands of vehicles may be affected. The bulk of some 103,000 model-year 2010 Prius cars sold in the United States are in California, Warshaw said. Toyota acknowledged it was aware of a braking problem and sought to fix it in production with a software adjustment starting in January, but 2010 models that rolled off the assembly line before that were sold without the change. Ms. Miller's car, purchased by the Los Angeles retiree in August of 2009, was one. The 2010 model Prius was introduced in the United States in May 2009. "We don't even know if the (production) fix was effective," Mr. Warshaw said. "They're required to issue a technical service bulletin" (to repair cars) but "that was never done." A U.S. Toyota spokesman has said the company expected to have a solution to braking complaints early this week and was preparing a global recall. The Prius has been the world's best-selling hybrid vehicle, helping Toyota grab 70 percent of the U.S. market for vehicles powered by a combination of an external-combustion engine and electric motor. TOYOTA MOTOR: Horwitz Files Hybrid Defect Suit in C.D. Calif. ------------------------------------------------------------- Horwitz, Horwitz & Paradis, Attorneys at Law, filed a nationwide class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of a class comprised of all persons and entities who purchased or leased any of the following Toyota (NYSE:TM) or Lexus Hybrid vehicles: (i) model year 2006 through 2009 Prius; (ii) model year 2010 Prius; (iii) model year 2005 through 2010 Toyota Highlander Hybrid; (iv) model year 2005 through 2010 Lexus RX 400h; (v) model year 2009 through 2010 Lexus RX 450h; and (vi) model year 2009 through 2010 Lexus HS 250h. The Complaint alleges that the brake system in the Toyota Hybrids is defectively designed and does not function properly when the Toyota Hybrids encounter slippery or uneven roadways, resulting in the activation of the anti-lock brake and vehicle stability control systems, and the inability of the Skid Control electronic control unit to cause the brakes to function properly. The design defect in the Toyota Hybrids is caused by a flaw in software which controls the Toyota Hybrids' brake system. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that the design defect in the Toyota Hybrids causes a delay between the time the brake pedal is engaged and when the brake system begins to slow the Toyota Hybrids. With the delay, a Toyota Hybrid traveling at 60 miles per hour will have traveled an additional 90-100 feet before the brakes even begin to engage - creating a grave safety issue for Class members and the public. Finally, the Complaint alleges that Toyota has known of the defective brake system in the Toyota Hybrids for years, but that Toyota has refused to publicly acknowledge the existence of the defect or recall these Toyota Hybrids in order to repair them so that they can be made safe. The complaint seeks certain relief including the replacement and/or recall of all the Toyota Hybrids equipped with the defective brake system, restitution and damages. If you have any information concerning the defective brake system in the Toyota Hybrid vehicles, or purchased or leased a Toyota Hybrid that you believe is equipped with a defective brake system and would like further information regarding this nationwide class action, please contact Molly Briere at 212-986-4500 or e- mail at mbriere@hhplawny.com. Horwitz, Horwitz & Paradis, Attorneys at Law, has been retained as one of the law firms to represent the Class. The attorneys at Horwitz, Horwitz & Paradis, Attorneys at Law, have extensive experience in prosecuting class action cases. The firm has been appointed as Lead Counsel in numerous major class actions by federal courts across the United States and has obtained major recoveries on behalf of injured parties. CONTACT: Michael A. Schwartz, Esq. HORWITZ, HORWITZ & PARADIS 405 Lexington Avenue, 61st Floor New York, NY 10174 Telephone: (212) 986-4500 Fax: (212) 986-4501 TOYOTA MOTOR: Shareholder Suit Filed in C.D. Calif. --------------------------------------------------- DailyBreeze.com reports that Toyota Motor Corp. was sued this week in Los Angeles federal court for failing to disclose to investors that there was a major design defect in the automaker's acceleration systems. The proposed class action complaint, filed in U.S. District Court in downtown Los Angeles by a San Diego law firm on behalf of all purchasers of Toyota publicly traded securities, accuses Toyota, certain of its affiliates and certain of their officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The suit alleges that Toyota issued "materially false and misleading statements" regarding its operations and its business and financial results and outlook when the company knew it had a design problem. "Defendants misled investors by failing to disclose that there was a major design defect in Toyota's acceleration system, which could cause unintended acceleration," the lawsuit alleges. "As a result of defendants' false statements, Toyota's securities traded at artificially inflated prices -- reaching a high of $91.78 per share on Jan. 19." Toyota's stock price had fallen to $73.49 per share on Feb. 3. A copy of the 47-page Complaint in Stackhouse v. Toyota Motor Corp., Case No. 10-cv-00922 (C.D. Calif.), is available at: http://bernardmgross.com/press_releases/2008/02/filed-cplt-2-8-102.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Darren J. Robins, Esq. David C. Walton, Esq. Catherine J. Kowalewski, Esq. COUGHLIN STOIA GELLER RUDMAN & ROBBINS LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: 619-231-7423 - and - Deborah R. Gross, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF BERNARD M. GROSS, P.C. Wanamaker Bldg., Suite 450 100 Pen Square East Philadelphia, PA 19107 Telephone: 215-561-3600 ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland USA. Gracele D. Canilao, Leah Felisilda and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2010. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Christopher Beard at 240/629-3300. * * * End of Transmission * * *